Rechercher dans ce blog

Thursday, September 1, 2022

Better governance starts with better words: why responsible human tissue research demands a change of language - BMC Medical Ethics - BMC Medical Ethics

  • Steinsbekk K, Solberg B. Biobank consent models: are we moving toward increased participant engagement in biobanking? J Biorepos Sci Appl Med. 2015;3(July):23–33. https://doi.org/10.2147/BSAM.S64577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroud K, O’Doherty KC. Ethically sustainable governance in the biobanking of eggs and embryos for research. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2015;33(4):277–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0047-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck RW. The right dose for every patient: a key step for precision medicine. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15(3):145–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2015.22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashley EA. The precision medicine initiative: a new national effort. JAMA – J Am Med Assoc. 2015;313(21):2119–20. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.3595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goold I, Quigley M. Human biomaterials: the case for a property approach. In: Goold I, Greasley K, Herring J, Skene L, editors. Persons, parts and property: how should we regulate human tissue in the 21st century? London: Hart Publishing; 2014. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474201339.ch-014.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell R, Waldby C. National biobanks: clinical labor, risk production, and the creation of biovalue. Sci Technol Human Values. 2010;35(3):330–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909340267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppola L, et al. Biobanking in health care: evolution and future directions. J Transl Med. 2019;17(1):172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-1922-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormond KE, et al. The clinical application of gene editing: ethical and social issues. Pers Med. 2019;16(4):337–50. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2018-0155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aboulkheyr Es H, Montazeri L, Aref AR, Vosough M, Baharvand H. Personalized cancer medicine: an organoid approach. Trends Biotechnol. 2018;36(4):358–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.12.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe RG, Daley GQ. Induced pluripotent stem cells in disease modelling and drug discovery. Nat Rev Genet. 2019;20(7):377–88. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-019-0100-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu H, Jiao Y, Qin S, Zhao W, Chu Q, Wu K. Organoid technology in disease modelling, drug development, personalized treatment and regeneration medicine. Exp Hematol Oncol. 2018;7(1):30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40164-018-0122-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D, Burgess M, Edwards K, Kaye J, Meslin EM, Nicol D. Marking shifts in human research ethics in the development of biobanking. Public Health Ethics. 2015;8(1):63–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phu023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solbakk JH, Holm S, Hofmann B. The ethics of research biobanking. New York: Springer; 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-93872-1.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blasimme A, Vayena E. Becoming partners, retaining autonomy: ethical considerations on the development of precision medicine. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0149-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D, et al. Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era Donna Dickenson, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, and Michael Morrison. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0124-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langhof H, Schwietering J, Strech D. Practice evaluation of biobank ethics and governance: current needs and future perspectives. J Med Genet. 2019;56(3):176–85. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2018-105617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manson NC. The biobank consent debate: why ‘meta-consent’ is not the solution? J Med Ethics. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan M. Can broad consent be informed consent? Public Health Ethics. 2011;4(3):226–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phr020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GM. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9(5):406–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipworth W, Forsyth R, Kerridge I. Tissue donation to biobanks: a review of sociological studies. Sociol Health Illn. 2011;33(5):792–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01342.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locock L, Boylan AMR. Biosamples as gifts? How participants in biobanking projects talk about donation. Health Expect. 2016;19(4):805–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boylan AMR, Locock L, Machin L. From waste product to blood, brains and narratives: developing a pluralist sociology of contributions to health research. Sociol Health Illn. 2019;41(3):585–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell D, et al. Biobanking from the patient perspective. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0001-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw R. The notion of the gift in the donation of body tissues. Sociol Res Online. 2008;13(6):41–50. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tutton R. Person, property and gift: exploring languages of tissue donation to biomedical research. In: Tutton R, Corrigan O, editors. Genetic databases: socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge; 2004. p. 19–38. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203577929.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Raivola V. The gift of life—does it apply to donation for research? ISBT Sci Ser. 2020;15(1):11–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/voxs.12533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, Van Lente H. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2006;18(3–4):285–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg SR. The language of power and the power of language. Organ Stud. 1987;8(1):61–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068700800105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler J. Performative acts and gender constitution: an essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatr J. 1988;40(4):519. https://doi.org/10.2307/3207893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle JR. How performatives work. Linguist Philos. 1989;12(5):535–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall JD. Performativity: Lyotard and Foucault through searle and austin. Stud Philos Educ. 1999;18(5):309–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005272607727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman E. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tutton R. Notes on policy, language, and human tissue. In: Sýkora P, Wiesing U, editors. Altruism reconsidered: exploring new approaches to property in human tissue. London: Routledge; 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315566610.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeyer KL, Tutton R. ‘Ethics was here’: studying the language-games of ethics in the case of UK Biobank. Crit Public Health. 2005;15(4):385–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581590500523533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boynton PM. People should participate in, not be subjects of, research. BMJ. 1998;317(7171):1521–1521. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7171.1521a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley E, Mikesell L, Jones F, Khodyakov D. From subject to participant: ethics and the evolving role of community in health research. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(5):900–8. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titmuss RM. The gift relationship. London: Allen & Unwin; 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sýkora P. Altruism in medical donations reconsidered: the reciprocity approach. In: Sýkora P, Wiesing U, editors. Altruism reconsidered: exploring new approaches to property in human tissue. London: Routledge; 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315566610.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Black HC. Black’s law dictionary. 9th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Thomson Reuters Westlaw; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prainsack B. Data donation: how to resist the iLeviathan. In: Krutzinna J, Floridi L, editors. The ethics of medical data donation. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04363-6_2.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lensink MA, Jongsma KR, Boers SN, Noordhoek JJ, Beekman JM, Bredenoord AL. Responsible use of organoids in precision medicine: the need for active participant involvement. Development. 2020;147(7):dev177972. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.177972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraft SA, et al. Beyond consent: building trusting relationships with diverse populations in precision medicine research. Am J Bioeth. 2018;18(4):3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1431322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLean I, Poulton J. Good blood, bad blood, and the market: the gift relationship revisited. J Publ Policy. 1986;6(4):431–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00004232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickenson D. Alternatives to a corporate commons: biobanking, genetics and property in the body. In: Goold I, Greasley K, Herring J, Skene L, editors. Persons, parts and property: how should we regulate human tissue in the 21st century? London: Hart Publishing; 2014. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474201339.ch-011.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart C, Lipworth W, Aparicio L, Fleming J, Kerridge I. The problems of biobanking and the law of gifts. In: Goold I, Greasley K, Herring J, Skene L, editors. Persons, parts and property: how should we regulate human tissue in the 21st century? London: Hart Publishing; 2014. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474201339.ch-003.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Waldby C, Mitchell R. Tissue economies: blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press; 2006. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388043.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dickenson D. Body shopping: the economy fuelled by flesh & blood. London: Oneworld Publications; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottweis H. Participation and the new governance of life. BioSocieties. 2008;3(3):265–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855208006194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boers SN, Delden JJ, Clevers H, Bredenoord AL. Organoid biobanking: identifying the ethics. EMBO Rep. 2016;17(7):938–41. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201642613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeyer K. Ambiguous gifts public anxiety, informed consent and biobanks. In: Tutton R, Corrigan O, editors. Genetic databases: socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge; 2004. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203577929.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Munsie M, Hyun I, Sugarman J. Ethical issues in human organoid and gastruloid research. Development. 2017;144(6):942–5. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.140111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavazza A, Massimini M. Cerebral organoids: ethical issues and consciousness assessment. J Med Ethics. 2018;44(9):606–10. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bredenoord AL, Hyun I. Ethics of stem cell-derived gametes made in a dish: fertility for everyone? EMBO Mol Med. 2017;9(4):396–8. https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.201607291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boers SN, van Delden JJM, Bredenoord AL. Organoids as hybrids: ethical implications for the exchange of human tissues. J Med Ethics. 2019;45(2):131–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-104846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldby C, Mitchell R. Gifts, commodities, and human tissues. In: Tissue economies: blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism, no. September 2001; 2002. p. 1–30.

  • Habets MGJL, van Delden JJM, Bredenoord AL. Studying the lay of the land: views and experiences of professionals in the translational pluripotent stem cell field. Regener Med. 2016;11(1):63–71. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme.15.78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boers SN, et al. Mini-guts in a dish: perspectives of adult cystic fibrosis (CF) patients and parents of young CF patients on organoid technology. J Cyst Fibros. 2018;17(3):407–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2018.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lensink MA, Boers SN, Jongsma KR, Carter SE, van der Ent CK, Bredenoord AL. Organoids for personalized treatment of cystic fibrosis: professional perspectives on the ethics and governance of organoid biobanking. J Cyst Fibros. 2021;20(3):443–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2020.11.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haselager DR, Boers SN, Jongsma KR, Vinkers CH, Broekman ML, Bredenoord AL. Breeding brains? Patients’ and laymen’s perspectives on cerebral organoids. Regen Med. 2020;15(12):2351–60. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2020-0108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamazaki T, El Rouby N, Fredette NC, Santostefano KE, Terada N. Concise review: induced pluripotent stem cell research in the era of precision medicine. Stem Cells. 2017;35(3):545–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.2570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell R. Blood banks, biobanks, and the ethics of donation. Transfusion (Paris). 2010;50(9):1866–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2010.02812.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burningham S, Ollenberger A, Caul T. Commercialization and stem cell research: a review of emerging issues institutionalization of commercialization. Stem Cells Dev. 2013;22:80–4. https://doi.org/10.1089/scd.2013.0317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickenson D. Property in the body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618659.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield T, et al. A review of the key issues associated with the commercialization of biobanks. J Law Biosci. 2014;1(3):94–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lst004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeyer K. Trading in cold blood? In: Dabrock P, Taupitz J, Ried J, editors. Trust in biobanking. Berlin: Springer; 2012. p. 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78845-4_2.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Macheiner T, Huppertz B, Bayer M, Sargsyan K. Challenges and driving forces for business plans in biobanking. Biopreserv Biobank. 2017;15(2):121–5. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2017.0018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol D, Critchley C. Benefit sharing and biobanking in Australia. Public Underst Sci. 2012;21(5):534–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511402425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beekman JM, et al. Biobanking: towards increased access of biomaterials in cystic fibrosis. Report on the pre-conference meeting to the 13th ECFS basic science conference, Pisa, 30 March–2 April, 2016. J Cyst Fibros. 2017;16(5):616–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2017.04.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner A, Dallaire-Fortier C, Murtagh MJ. Biobank economics and the ‘commercialization problem.’ Spontaneous Gener: J Hist Philos Sci. 2013;7(1):69–80. https://doi.org/10.4245/sponge.v7i1.19555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Doherty KC, et al. From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(3):367–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries RG, et al. The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2016;12(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-016-0036-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeckhout M, Douglas CMW. Governing the research-care divide in clinical biobanking: Dutch perspectives. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2015;11(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-015-0025-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol D, et al. Precision medicine: drowning in a regulatory soup? J Law Biosci. 2016;3(2):281–303. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsw018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaye J. Do we need a uniform regulatory system for biobanks across Europe? Eur J Hum Genet. 2006;14:245–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minssen T, Schovsbo J. Legal aspects of biobanking as key issues for personalized medicine and translational exploitation. Pers Med. 2014;11(5):497–508. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.14.29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson JE, et al. Biobanks and personalized medicine. Clin Genet. 2014;86(1):50–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkman BE, Hull SC, Eckstein L. The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age. Pers Med. 2014;11(3):285–95. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.14.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnsson L, Eriksson S, Helgesson G, Hansson MG. Making researchers moral: why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review. Res Ethics. 2014;10(1):29–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016113504778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews PW, et al. Disclosure and management of research findings in stem cell research and banking: policy statement. Regen Med. 2012;7:439–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vos S, van Delden JJM, van Diest PJ, Bredenoord AL. Moral duties of genomics researchers: why personalized medicine requires a collective approach. Trends Genet. 2017;33(2):118–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2016.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf SM, et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics. 2008;36(2):219–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00266.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenk, C. Donors and users of human tissue for research purposes BT—trust in biobanking; 2012. p. 83–95.

  • Gottweis H, Lauss G. Biobank governance in the post-genomic age. Pers Med. 2010;7(2):187–95. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.10.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huch M, Knoblich JA, Lutolf MP, Martinez-Arias A. The hope and the hype of organoid research. Development. 2017;144(6):938–41. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.150201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagley JA, Reumann D, Bian S, Lévi-Strauss J, Knoblich JA. Fused cerebral organoids model interactions between brain regions. Nat Methods. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bredenoord AL, Clevers H, Knoblich JA. Human tissues in a dish: the research and ethical implications of organoid technology. Science (1979). 2017;355(6322):eaaf9414. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf9414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budin-Ljøsne I, et al. Dynamic consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0162-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon-Woods M, et al. Tissue samples as ‘gifts’ for research: a qualitative study of families and professionals. Med Law Int. 2008;9(2):131–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/096853320800900203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikkelsen RB, Gjerris M, Waldemar G, Sandøe P. Broad consent for biobanks is best—provided it is also deep. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0414-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield T, Murdoch B. Genes, cells, and biobanks: yes, there’s still a consent problem. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(7): e2002654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manson NC. The ethics of biobanking: assessing the right to control problem for broad consent. Bioethics. 2019;33(5):540–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan M, et al. Authority and the future of consent in population-level biomedical research. Public Health Ethics. 2019;12(3):225–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phz015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley E, Mendoza-Graf A, Berry S, Nebeker C, Khodyakov D. From ‘informed’ to ‘engaged’ consent: risks and obligations in consent for participation in a health data repository. J Law Med Ethics. 2020;48(1):172–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110520917007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cargill SS. Biobanking and the abandonment of informed consent: an ethical imperative. Public Health Ethics. 2016;9(3):255–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phw001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann B. Broadening consent-and diluting ethics? J Med Ethics. 2009;35(2):125–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.024851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boers SN, van Delden JJM, Bredenoord AL. Broad consent is consent for governance. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(9):53–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2015.1062165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeyer K, Lynöe N. Motivating donors to genetic research? Anthropological reasons to rethink the role of informed consent. Med Health Care Philos. 2006;9(1):13–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-005-5067-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beskow LM, Weinfurt KP. Exploring understanding of ‘understanding’: the paradigm case of biobank consent comprehension. Am J Bioeth. 2019;19(5):6–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1587031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperbauer TJ, Schmidt KK, Thomas A, Perkins SM, Schwartz PH. Incorporating biobank consent into a healthcare setting: challenges for patient understanding. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2020.1851313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhauer ER, Tait AR, Rieh SY, Arslanian-Engoren CM. Participants’ understanding of informed consent for biobanking: a systematic review. Clin Nurs Res. 2019;28(1):30–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773817722690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lensink MA, Boers SN, Gulmans VAM, Jongsma KR, Bredenoord AL. Mini-gut feelings: perspectives of people with cystic fibrosis on the ethics and governance of organoid biobanking. Pers Med. 2021;18(3):241–54. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2020-0161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans. Geneva; 2016.

  • Van Delden JJM, Van Der Graaf R. Revised CIOMS international ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. JAMA – J Am Med Assoc. 2017;317(2):135–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.18977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbut JB, Jasanoff S, Saha K. Constitutionalism at the Nexus of life and law. Sci Technol Human Values. 2020;45(6):979–1000. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243920921236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Master Z, Nelson E, Murdoch B, Caulfield T. Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nat Methods. 2012;9(9):885–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boers SN, Bredenoord AL. Consent for governance in the ethical use of organoids. Nat Cell Biol. 2018;20(6):642–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-018-0112-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson T. RESPECTING donors to biobank research. Hastings Cent Rep. 2013;43(1):41–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tutton R. Gift relationships in genetics research. Sci Cult. 2002;11(4):523–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950543022000028965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw R. Perceptions of the gift relationship in organ and tissue donation: views of intensivists and donor and recipient coordinators. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(4):609–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White W. A rare disease patient/caregiver perspective on fair pricing and access to gene-based therapies. Gene Ther. 2019;27(10–11):474–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41434-019-0110-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews L. Who owns your body? A patient’s perspective on Washington University v. Catalona. J Law Med Ethics. 2006;34(2):398–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00046.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prainsack B, Buyx A. A solidarity-based approach to the governance of research biobanks. Med Law Rev. 2013;21(1):71–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fws040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winickoff DE. Partnership in U.K. biobank: a third way for genomic property. J Law Med Ethics. 2007;35(3):440–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00166.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell D, et al. Biobanking from the patient perspective. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0001-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saha K, Hurlbut JB. Treat donors as partners in biobank research. Nature. 2011;478(7369):312–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/478312a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeckhout M, Reuzel R, Zielhuis G. “The donor as partner”, How to involve patients and the public in the governance of biobanks and registries. Groningen: Biobanking and Biomolecular Research Infrastructure (BBMRI); 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberdorfer KLJ. The lessons of Greenberg: informed consent and the protection of tissue sources’ research interests. Georget Law J. 2004;93(1):365–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield DL. Greenberg v. Miami children’s hospital: unjust enrichment and the patenting of human genetic material. Ann Health Law. 2006;15(2):213–49 (Table of contents).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe LB. You don’t own me: recommendations to protect human contributors of biological material after Washington University v. Catalona student notes and comments. Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 2009;84(1):227–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budds B. Toward a just model of alienability of human tissue. Univ San Franc Law Rev. 2003;37(3):757–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beskow LM. Lessons from HeLa cells: the ethics and policy of biospecimens. Annu Rev Genom Hum Genet. 2016;17(1):395–417. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-083115-022536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottweis H, Lauss G. Biobank governance: heterogeneous modes of ordering and democratization. J Community Genet. 2012;3(2):61–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-011-0070-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgdorf KS, et al. Extending the gift of donation: blood donor public health studies. ISBT Sci Ser. 2015;10(S1):225–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/voxs.12119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinlay A. Performativity and the politics of identity: putting Butler to work. Crit Perspect Account. 2010;21(3):232–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2008.01.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottweis H, Gaskell G, Starkbaum J. Connecting the public with biobank research: reciprocity matters. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12(11):738–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adblock test (Why?)


    Better governance starts with better words: why responsible human tissue research demands a change of language - BMC Medical Ethics - BMC Medical Ethics
    Read More

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    The Winnipeg Foundation Innovation Fund supports cutting-edge projects - UM Today

    February 1, 2024 —  Three interdisciplinary teams from the Rady Faculty of Health Sciences have received $100,000 grants from The Winnipeg...